To answer the question "Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?"Yes he does.

This is your opinion. It is fine to present your opinion, but not when you are trying to present it as a fact.

Quote from: Lukvance

The proof? Miracles are proof or the existence of God outside our body/brains.

No, they are not, because nobody has ever actually demonstrated that something is a miracle, let alone that it's caused by some supernatural entity.

Quote from: Lukvance

Do they follow any scientific process? Yes they do.

They follow it to a limited extent, by investigating to find if there is some known scientific cause for them. It's what they do after determining that there is no known cause that is not scientific.

Quote from: Lukvance

Are the experiment reproducible? Yes.

No, they are not, because the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians, who subjectively decide whether it is or isn't a miracle. That not only is not reproducible, it is no more scientific than if someone claimed that Darth Vader had told him that neutrinos were actually "The Force".

Quote from: Lukvance

Up to now all I've read are personal opinions not supported by any documents or experts from the field. I get it you want to make sure that there are no flaws in the method. But I remind you that you are not the only one trying to refute the existence of God and that those before you met the same wall that you encounter now. Your lack of knowledge on the subject.

This isn't about trying to refute God. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. That's why it's up to believers like yourself to provide evidence that shows that it does.

Quote from: Lukvance

Ask a priest, a professional, an expert about miracles. Read their books. The process is as scientific as it can be and that there are no stone left unturned before declaring an event as a miracle. I did the research.

You believing that your priests are professional experts on miracles does not actually make them that. That's a fatal problem with your position; no matter how many times you assert that priests are "miracle experts", there's no way for them to independently prove that something is a miracle. All they can do is say, "well, scientists investigated it and couldn't explain it, so we asked our god and he told us whether he did it". In other words, we have to take their word for it, which isn't scientific in any way.

Quote from: Lukvance

I remember someone asking me why I use "events", sometime I use event because miracles are not only about people healing there are more than one way that God reveal his presence to us.

And this is a second fatal problem with your assertion. What seems to you to be God revealing his presence can seem like something entirely different to someone else. For example, skeptic564768 would avow that it isn't actually God revealing his presence to you, it's demons masquerading as your god to keep you fooled. Whereas an atheist or skeptic would likely conclude that it wasn't a god or other supernatural being at all, and instead was simply your brain doing what it does best - reinforcing what you already believe to be true by looking for patterns that support it and dismissing patterns that don't.

Would you want to talk about computer technology with someone who was terribly lacking in knowledge you considered necessary for the discussion?

Yes. I love that . If I had a conversation with someone who supported the fact that Internet Explorer was the best browser of all time but is a professional singer, that would be interesting. I wouldn't call him ignorant (even if he might be) I would only point out the flaw(s) in his logic like I did in my one on one discussion about the existence of God and let the people decide.

Would you want to talk about computer technology with someone who was terribly lacking in knowledge you considered necessary for the discussion?

Yes. I love that . If I had a conversation with someone who supported the fact that Internet Explorer was the best browser of all time but is a professional singer, that would be interesting. I wouldn't call him ignorant (even if he might be) I would only point out the flaw(s) in his logic like I did in my one on one discussion about the existence of God and let the people decide.

Too bad you still haven't proven the existence of he she it.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

Sure you might be nice and listen to what they have to say, but if all they do is repeat the same incorrect methods over and over which you identify as illogical, why would you believe them? If you believe them, then why not believe everyone about anything?

That makes perfect sense. I guess the difference between you and me is that if someone comes to me with a proof and I don't know how to disprove it or how "it" should happen so I could accept it, then I will accept it until proven otherwise.

This is called the “Argument from ignorance” logical fallacy and is exactly the fallacy which myself and others have been trying to explain to you is not a reasonable way to believe things are true. Such logic enables you to believe anything whether it is true or false, instead of reserving belief until sufficient evidence is provided and the explanation is the best possible one. Even still, one must remain open to the possibility of new information making a previously held belief no longer viable.

You are also dangerously close to using the “negative proof” logical fallacy if you expect something to be disproven as it is impossible to prove a negative.

In your case, even if proof is given to you, you reject it on the base that they do not conform to your needs, not because they are not valid, just because they are going against your beliefs.

That is exactly what you are doing actually. Your mistake though is thinking I have needs or beliefs regarding “God” when I do not. I am perfectly willing to accept that “God” exists and is the cause of miracles, if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence. I have given you proof that the evidence you’ve provided is not valid, which you have rejected because it does not conform to your needs and because it goes against your beliefs.

Are you willing to accept that “God” does not exist and is not the cause of miracles, if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?

In short : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God. I know what would make me accept every facts that I don't believe in.

Actually I do know what would make me accept that miracles are an act from “God” as a fact. I’ve explained to you that first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world, and then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”. Since no evidence has been provided regarding the existence of “God”, I have no way of knowing that “God” was involved in the “miracles”.

Your logic so far dictates that you believe everything for which someone else believes is true and for which there is a “expert”.

What exactly don’t you believe?

Do you believe in Hinduism (people have experienced it and there are experts in Hinduism)? Do you believe in Islam (people have experienced it and there are experts in Islam)? Do you believe in Ancient Aliens (people believe it is true and there are experts)? Do you believe in astrology (people have experienced it and there are experts)? Do you believe in fortune telling (people have experienced it and there are experts)? Do you believe in magic (people have experienced it and there are experts)?

Look for reason why it is “God”. Okay, THAT is where I’d like to see some information. What are the reasons why it is “God”? Where is that data showing that?

You should ask an expert about that to have the more correct info. The where, for each miracle, is reported in the Vatican archives.

I’ve reviewed the methods reported to be used by the Vatican and have found them to be flawed. One of the problems is that there is no peer-review process of the research done by the Catholic Church. The system is set up so that only those within the Catholic Church are the experts, which makes it a self review process. Self-review processes tend to ignore bias which favors the desired outcome. The peer-review process seeks to remove bias and ignores the desired outcome.

So if the Catholic Church would like to submit its findings to outside experts (perhaps the Dalai Lama or maybe Caltech).

If it can help you, the way I recognize God in my everyday life is the following "there are no bad after effect" meaning the consequence of God acting in my life cannot be wrong or bad or evil or anything negative.It's exactly what people usually feel when they follow their conscience. Not following it usually have negative effects.

So how do you know that “God” doesn’t cause bad things to happen to you? Like a test? If bad things happening to us might be a test, how do we know that everything isn’t caused by “God”? What if someone follows their conscience and they feel like “God” is involved, but then something bad happens? Not “God”? What if it was a test?

You’re basically describing confirmation bias, in which you selectively interpret things to “recognize God”. Good things happening does not prove that “God” exists. This type of logic leads to people thinking the government is out to get them, the neighbors are stealing their socks and an alien invasion is due any day now.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

To answer the question "Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?"Yes he does.The proof? Miracles are proof or the existence of God outside our body/brains.Do they follow any scientific process? Yes they do.Are the experiment reproducible? Yes.

You can read about it on reply #421#427#359-360Since reply #203 you already have answer and proof.Up to now all I've read are personal opinions not supported by any documents or experts from the field. I get it you want to make sure that there are no flaws in the method. But I remind you that you are not the only one trying to refute the existence of God and that those before you met the same wall that you encounter now. Your lack of knowledge on the subject.Ask a priest, a professional, an expert about miracles. Read their books. The process is as scientific as it can be and that there are no stone left unturned before declaring an event as a miracle. I did the research.I remember someone asking me why I use "events", sometime I use event because miracles are not only about people healing there are more than one way that God reveal his presence to us.

priests are also experts in child rape and child molesting should I seek their expert advice on this miracle?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The proof? Miracles are proof or the existence of God outside our body/brains.

No, they are not, because nobody has ever actually demonstrated that something is a miracle, let alone that it's caused by some supernatural entity.

You see? That is a perfect example of a counter argument that is not supported. You should explain how would someone should "demonstrate that something is a miracle" then how it doesn't actually go that way and who that someone else (preferably an expert) is supporting your claim.

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

Do they follow any scientific process? Yes they do.

They follow it to a limited extent, by investigating to find if there is some known scientific cause for them. It's what they do after determining that there is no known cause that is not scientific.

What else would you add? Again "what they do after is not scientific" is a claim that should be supported. And for that you should be able to tell us "what they do after" and support your claim with quotes from experts that knows "what they do after" then show us why it is not scientific. Finally present us how it should be done to be scientific.

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

Are the experiment reproducible? Yes.

No, they are not, because the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians, who subjectively decide whether it is or isn't a miracle. That not only is not reproducible, it is no more scientific than if someone claimed that Darth Vader had told him that neutrinos were actually "The Force".

Your counter argument here is "the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians". When I presented the scientific method I indeed presented these expert as a source for the final verdict. I understand how it can be misunderstood. But it doesn't have to be them. You can declare something to be a miracle by following the same rules they do and then present your findings to experts. They will surely acknowledge your work and you will have found a miracle recognize by the Church.You can also find a miracle not recognize by the church but you wouldn't be 100% sure that it is God's doing. Like if you find proof of a Higgs Boson in your backyard, you wouldn't be 100% sure it is one as long as you don't submit your findings to experts.

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

Up to now all I've read are personal opinions not supported by any documents or experts from the field. I get it you want to make sure that there are no flaws in the method. But I remind you that you are not the only one trying to refute the existence of God and that those before you met the same wall that you encounter now. Your lack of knowledge on the subject.

This isn't about trying to refute God. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. That's why it's up to believers like yourself to provide evidence that shows that it does.

If it's not about that. What is it about then? Why do you try to refute the proofs of God's existence if you don't want to refute the existence of God?

Quote

In other words, we have to take their word for it, which isn't scientific in any way.

What would be the scientific way?

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

I remember someone asking me why I use "events", sometime I use event because miracles are not only about people healing there are more than one way that God reveal his presence to us.

And this is a second fatal problem with your assertion. What seems to you to be God revealing his presence can seem like something entirely different to someone else. For example, skeptic564768 would avow that it isn't actually God revealing his presence to you, it's demons masquerading as your god to keep you fooled. Whereas an atheist or skeptic would likely conclude that it wasn't a god or other supernatural being at all, and instead was simply your brain doing what it does best - reinforcing what you already believe to be true by looking for patterns that support it and dismissing patterns that don't.

I don't get what is your counter argument here? Everyone has his opinion? That's not new. That doesn't make something true, less true. It is not because someone think that it is from another God that makes miracles coming from another God. It's not because you think that it's simply brains doing that it does best that it is not God's doing. You have to support your claims, preferably with people recognize by their peers as knowledgeable when it comes to miracles.

Are you willing to accept that “God” does not exist and is not the cause of miracles, if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?

Of course! I am not dumb. It's like if you are asking me "are you willing to accept that men did not walk on the moon if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?" Of course I would! But I doubt you will find enough supported evidence.

In short : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God. I know what would make me accept every facts that I don't believe in.

Quote

Actually I do know what would make me accept that miracles are an act from “God” as a fact. I’ve explained to you

let's see if you explained something or if you just thew ideas without supporting them.

Quote

first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world,

What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use? Who will predict what to expect from God? You? The Pope? so many question without answers.

Quote

then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”.

How would you determine such thing?

That's it that's all you have to say? then allow me to say it again : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God

Quote

What exactly don’t you believe?

I don't believe that the Catholic church is run by Satan for example . I don't believe that I can teleport myself or that someone can teleport. There are many things I don't believe.

Quote

Do you believe in Hinduism (people have experienced it and there are experts in Hinduism)? Do you believe in Islam (people have experienced it and there are experts in Islam)? Do you believe in Ancient Aliens (people believe it is true and there are experts)? Do you believe in astrology (people have experienced it and there are experts)? Do you believe in fortune telling (people have experienced it and there are experts)?

No

Quote

Do you believe in magic (people have experienced it and there are experts)?

Depends on the form. But I would say yes.

Quote

Do you avoid stepping on cracks?

No

Quote

Do you throw salt over your shoulder if you spill salt?

No.

Quote

I’ve reviewed the methods reported to be used by the Vatican and have found them to be flawed.

What was your source?

Quote

One of the problems is that there is no peer-review process of the research done by the Catholic Church. The system is set up so that only those within the Catholic Church are the experts, which makes it a self review process. Self-review processes tend to ignore bias which favors the desired outcome. The peer-review process seeks to remove bias and ignores the desired outcome.

explain to me how a peer-review process for a miracle should work. Then tell me that it is not what is already being done.

Quote

So how do you know that “God” doesn’t cause bad things to happen to you? Like a test?

It's what Catholicism Christian religion taught me and what I've experienced so far.

Quote

If bad things happening to us might be a test, how do we know that everything isn’t caused by “God”?

Same reason, religion.

Quote

What if someone follows their conscience and they feel like “God” is involved, but then something bad happens?

Did it ever happen to you? If not, you are asking me "what if the impossible happen?"

Quote

What if it was a test?

A test from your conscience? why? I don't see any reason why your conscience would put you to a test by LYING to you.

I asked you to explain what you thought the Higgs boson was, Lukvance. Do not think you can dodge the issue by responding to only part of my post and leaving the question I have now asked you three times out.

Yes. I love that . If I had a conversation with someone who supported the fact that Internet Explorer was the best browser of all time but is a professional singer, that would be interesting. I wouldn't call him ignorant (even if he might be) I would only point out the flaw(s) in his logic like I did in my one on one discussion about the existence of God and let the people decide.

That's a very democratic attitude, but the problem is that in many situations, it's the worst one to have. Let's take vaccinations, for example. There's a concept known as herd immunity, which basically means that if most people are immunized against a disease, the ones who can't be (for whatever reason) are also protected from it. However, there are a sizable number of people who disagree with vaccinations, for whatever reason. Some think that vaccines cause autism, for example - an attitude which is spread by celebrities who also believe it, and who sway people not because their opinions are right, but because they happen to be popular - and there are other reasons as well. The problem is, when you allow all those people to opt out of immunizations (for themselves and their children), then you're putting the health and lives of people who actually can't be immunized at risk, because herd immunity only works if a very high percentage of the population is immune to it.

In short, the people who think they have a right to not be vaccinated are indirectly threatening people who can't be. This is a direct result of your "let the people decide" attitude.

I've got plenty more examples of why your "let the people decide" opinion is truly awful.

Now now,there are people who HAVE been vaccinated and have contracted disease,my children for example all vaccinated for whooping cough 2 out of 4 got it. People who also think immunization means 100% safety are also ill informed..... End of rant

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Now now,there are people who HAVE been vaccinated and have contracted disease,my children for example all vaccinated for whooping cough 2 out of 4 got it. People who also think immunization means 100% safety are also ill informed..... End of rant

Bolds mine.

Good thing no one has claimed that, then.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 09:35:44 PM by wright »

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Now now,there are people who HAVE been vaccinated and have contracted disease,my children for example all vaccinated for whooping cough 2 out of 4 got it. People who also think immunization means 100% safety are also ill informed..... End of rant

Bolds mine.

Good thing no one has claimed that, then.

I am aware of that,but don't you think someone who has been vaccinated thinks they are safe because they got a shot?.... That was more the point I was trying to make,apologies,thanks for the correction

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Do you believe in Hinduism (people have experienced it and there are experts in Hinduism)? Do you believe in Islam (people have experienced it and there are experts in Islam)? Do you believe in Ancient Aliens (people believe it is true and there are experts)? Do you believe in astrology (people have experienced it and there are experts)? Do you believe in fortune telling (people have experienced it and there are experts)?

Do you believe in magic (people have experienced it and there are experts)?

Depends on the form. But I would say yes.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.

Are you willing to accept that “God” does not exist and is not the cause of miracles, if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?

Of course! I am not dumb. It's like if you are asking me "are you willing to accept that men did not walk on the moon if that conclusion is reached through examination of the evidence?" Of course I would! But I doubt you will find enough supported evidence.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could provide the same amount of quality evidence in support of the existence of "God" as can be provided for humans walking on the moon.

Any pictures? Any "God" rocks? Any reflective mirrors on the surface of "God" that we can use to bounce lasers off of?

Nope, all you got is what you were taught and how you feel about things.

first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world,

What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use?

Not sure why you are asking me, the "God" exists hypothesis isn't mine. Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved.

Who will predict what to expect from God? You? The Pope? so many question without answers.

Whoever has formed the hypothesis will make the predictions based on their research and detection of "God". Those predictions will be able to be verified or falsified by anyone (assuming they have the means) using the necessary test procedures.

This is called the scientific method. How can you claim that the Vatican has used the scientific method if you can't recognize the basic steps of the scientific method?

then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”.

How would you determine such thing?

Your question completely ignores the prior two steps. Once you've detected "God" and verified that "God" exists, and understand the behavior of "God" THEN .... you ..... can ...... identify ...... when ........."God".......has......interacted ..... with ....... reality.

That's it that's all you have to say? then allow me to say it again : You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God

Thats all I needed to say. Here I'll say it again : I’ve explained to you that first we need to detect “God” and make predictions about what to expect from “God” interacting with the natural world, and then we can determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”. Since no evidence has been provided regarding the existence of “God”, I have no way of knowing that “God” was involved in the “miracles”.

One of the problems is that there is no peer-review process of the research done by the Catholic Church. The system is set up so that only those within the Catholic Church are the experts, which makes it a self review process. Self-review processes tend to ignore bias which favors the desired outcome. The peer-review process seeks to remove bias and ignores the desired outcome.

explain to me how a peer-review process for a miracle should work. Then tell me that it is not what is already being done.

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility."

This is not being done by the Catholic Church as only those within the Catholic Church review their claims. If you argue that only those in the Catholic Church are qualified to review their own claims then this is circular. It would be like if I got to determine my yearly pay raise instead of my boss. If the Pope declairs a miracle happend, is some bishop going to say, oh wait, I found this evidence which means you're wrong mister Pope.

So how do you know that “God” doesn’t cause bad things to happen to you? Like a test?

It's what Catholicism Christian religion taught me and what I've experienced so far.

So what if I was taught something different and what I was taught is what I've experienced so far?I've been taught that there is no god or gods and what I've been taught fits exactly with the reality I've experienced so far. If your logic is rational then we are both right.

You see? That is a perfect example of a counter argument that is not supported.

No, it's an example of me being skeptical of something that you're claiming is true with little in the way of evidence to support it.

Quote from: Lukvance

You should explain how would someone should "demonstrate that something is a miracle" then how it doesn't actually go that way and who that someone else (preferably an expert) is supporting your claim.

No, I should not, because I am not the one making claims about miracles in the first place. You are the one trying to claim that these healings at Lourdes are miracles. For you to tell me that I should show why they aren't miracles is telling me to prove a negative, which is impossible. It is up to you to provide sufficient evidence to show that they are; if you cannot, then you have no real business making the claim in the first place.

Quote from: Lukvance

What else would you add?

How about you show evidence of some particular kind of energy which is present only in the people healed, and not present in the others? That wouldn't necessarily show that it was a miracle, but it would at least show that there was some basis for concluding that there was a difference between those who were healed and those who weren't.

Quote from: Lukvance

Again "what they do after is not scientific" is a claim that should be supported. And for that you should be able to tell us "what they do after" and support your claim with quotes from experts that knows "what they do after" then show us why it is not scientific. Finally present us how it should be done to be scientific.

It is up to you to show that what your priests do is scientific. I have already conceded that the process is scientific up to a point - specifically, where the scientists involved conclude that they have no explanation for why those people healed. It is up to you to show that the process your priests go through is also scientific, which you have consistently and repeatedly failed to do. To do this even by your own rules, you must show that your priests are experts in science (which, notably, you have never actually done). If they are not experts in science, they cannot take over from actual experts in science who concluded that they couldn't explain something.

Quote from: Lukvance

Your counter argument here is "the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians".

Which it is.

Quote from: Lukvance

When I presented the scientific method I indeed presented these expert as a source for the final verdict. I understand how it can be misunderstood.

Your priests and theologians are experts on the rituals of the Catholic church. That does not make them experts on miracles, nor does make their verdict (that something is or isn't a miracle) unimpeachable. I can understand why you might confuse the two - it's because the Catholic church has a ritual for deciding whether something is or isn't a miracle. But that doesn't make a bit of difference as to whether it actually is or isn't a miracle. It simply means that they followed the ritual which, to them, decides whether it is.

Quote from: Lukvance

But it doesn't have to be them. You can declare something to be a miracle by following the same rules they do and then present your findings to experts. They will surely acknowledge your work and you will have found a miracle recognize by the Church.

In short, if I follow the same rules that your church does, including submitting my findings to that very same church after determining that scientists had no explanation for what happened, they would again decide that it was a miracle? And you don't see the problem with this? Tell me, do the words "conflict of interest" mean anything to you?

Basically, you are placing the decision on whether something is a miracle in the hands of an organization which has a vested interest in promoting miracles as the actions of your god. And you are telling other people that all they have to do is follow the same procedure, including placing the final decision in the hands of that same organization, and they'll get the same result. What you aren't realizing is that you're basically asking the same organization to confirm that it was right the first time. That's the equivalent of asking a scientist who did an experiment to do it again and, when they get the same result, expecting that it proves something.

There's a reason scientists have to have their peers review their work, including people who don't agree with them. However, for that to work here, your church would have to let other religious organizations, including non-Christian ones, get in on the act. I'm sure even you can see the problem with that.

Quote from: Lukvance

You can also find a miracle not recognize by the church but you wouldn't be 100% sure that it is God's doing.

And what happens when someone goes through all that rigamarole with a miracle recognized by your church, but takes it to some other church, which declares that it was not actually God's doing, but a demon's doing? This is a big problem that you haven't faced; your method requires accepting the authority of your church, but what happens when someone doesn't accept it?

Quote from: Lukvance

Like if you find proof of a Higgs Boson in your backyard, you wouldn't be 100% sure it is one as long as you don't submit your findings to experts.

I would ask if you were serious, but I'm unfortunately sure that you are. This is why I'm virtually certain that you have no clue what the Higgs boson is, and thus why your attempts to use it to support your miracle rhetoric don't work. There is no chance whatsoever of someone finding a Higgs boson by accident in their backyard, or even on purpose. Finding one isn't like digging up a dinosaur fossil or a gold nugget or something like that, where it can be confused for certain other things and thus you have to be sure it's not one of those things. The fact that you don't understand this yet persist in trying to use it as an example anyway demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to be taken seriously.

Quote from: Lukvance

If it's not about that. What is it about then? Why do you try to refute the proofs of God's existence if you don't want to refute the existence of God?

Because I don't believe that these proofs you're offering are actual proofs of anything except the ignorance of the people making them. I told you, I care about honesty, which means I'm not willing to countenance the pretense that a person who doesn't know any better can declare that something is the work of a god. It would be different if they had evidence of an entity that we actually knew about doing it. But they're using the fact that we don't know what caused something as justification to turn it over to priests who have a vested interest in promoting belief in their god, and then acting it's meaningful that said priests say that it actually is their god.

Quote from: Lukvance

What would be the scientific way?

I've tried to explain to you how science works, and you've only come back trying to claim that what you're doing is too scientific! You've demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the Higgs boson, and yet you keep trying to use it to support your belief in miracles even though it's patently ridiculous to use something you don't know much about to justify something else you don't know much about. All you've succeeded in demonstrating there is that you understand neither miracles nor the Higgs boson.

The problem is, the one way which would be scientific - which is to allow one's peers to review and repeat your method and procedures - wouldn't work here, because it would require your church to allow its peers - that is, other churches, both Christian and non-Christian - to review its claims of miracles in order to verify whether they were real or not. Truthfully, if, say, Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Hindus, were to go through this and concluded that they weren't actually miracles from God, would you be even slightly likely to listen to them?

Quote from: Lukvance

I don't get what is your counter argument here? Everyone has his opinion? That's not new. That doesn't make something true, less true. It is not because someone think that it is from another God that makes miracles coming from another God. It's not because you think that it's simply brains doing that it does best that it is not God's doing. You have to support your claims, preferably with people recognize by their peers as knowledgeable when it comes to miracles.

Of course you don't get it. That would require you to consider that your church might not actually have the authority to declare that something was a miracle, simply because we didn't know what actually caused it. It would require you to consider that might not be any "miracle experts" in the first place, because to be an expert on something means that a person has to be able to understand it, not just pass it off as the work of some entity that they don't understand either. You're making the same mistake that people from time immemorial have made - that their priests are experts on whatever god or gods they believe in. What those priests are actual experts on are the rituals of whatever religion they were trained in. Being an expert on Catholic rituals does not qualify someone to declare that something was a miracle from God any more than being an expert on computers qualifies me to declare that a computer fixing itself for an unknown reason was a miracle from God.

I asked you to explain what you thought the Higgs boson was, Lukvance. Do not think you can dodge the issue by responding to only part of my post and leaving the question I have now asked you three times out.

Read a book : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson. Stop trying to change the subject. We are talking about the proof of the existence of God outside your body : Miracles. Not what is a Higgs Boson.

Quote

In short, the people who think they have a right to not be vaccinated are indirectly threatening people who can't be. This is a direct result of your "let the people decide" attitude.I've got plenty more examples of why your "let the people decide" opinion is truly awful.

It is not. When you look at the data. Does most of the population (most of the educated people) get vaccinated? If so, the people decided it was a good thing. You should then try another example than the vaccination one because people who don't get vaccinated would be the minority.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.Source: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html

Thank you for the definition. How does this relate to what I am presenting as proof? Miracles are the proof of existence of God outside our body.Or is it a definition to counter one of my arguments? I don't get it. Why would you give us a definition, I did not ask for one (I know what confirmation bias is) nor anyone else. Maybe I missed it?

Quote

Any pictures? Any "God" rocks? Any reflective mirrors on the surface of "God" that we can use to bounce lasers off of?

Yes we call them miracles. You can take look up pictures of people that has been touch by God, you can even touch them. You can look at the Miracle of LancianoWiki and visit the relics, see them with your own eyes. It is God's flesh and blood.

Quote

Not sure why you are asking me, the "God" exists hypothesis isn't mine. Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved. I really don't understand why that is a complicated concept for you.

That is because You don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God You say :

What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use?

And you answer :

Quote

Without any means of detecting "God" we have no way of knowing if "God" interacted with reality or if some other unknown variable was involved.

How does that answer the question? You stated something that we both agree on and think that you answered the question? Is this how you answer a question?Let me ask you again : What would the detecting look like? With your 5 senses? What instruments should we use? You can answer "I don't know" and then I will have prove that "you don't know what would make you accept the fact that miracle are an act from God"And then we can move the discussion.

Quote

Whoever has formed the hypothesis will make the predictions based on their research and detection of "God". Those predictions will be able to be verified or falsified by anyone (assuming they have the means) using the necessary test procedures.This is called the scientific method. How can you claim that the Vatican has used the scientific method if you can't recognize the basic steps of the scientific method?

I know the basic steps of the scientific method. What could be the test procedures? Aren't them already in place?I keep coming back to my first question that you cleverly avoided.

Quote

Your question completely ignores the prior two steps. Once you've detected "God" and verified that "God" exists, and understand the behavior of "God" THEN .... you ..... can ...... identify ...... when ........."God".......has......interacted ..... with ....... reality.

So, you mean *I* will determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”? Or *You* will? Let me ask you another question : Who will determine if “God” was actually involved in these “miracles”? How is this different from what is already in place?

Quote

This [the peer-review process] is not being done by the Catholic Church as only those within the Catholic Church review their claims.

What is preventing you, SevenPatch, to review their claims? Isn't the claim reviewed by non catholic before submitted to the church?

Quote

If the Pope declairs a miracle happend, is some bishop going to say, oh wait, I found this evidence which means you're wrong mister Pope.

I guess this is a question. The answer is : Yes! Of course. This is one of the reasons why it is so rare to find miracles. We must be absolutely certain that it is one before claiming it.

Quote

So what if I was taught something different and what I was taught is what I've experienced so far?I've been taught that there is no god or gods and what I've been taught fits exactly with the reality I've experienced so far. If your logic is rational then we are both right.

Yes, indeed.

Quote

Okay, so whatever you've been told?

I don't understand the question. I've learned by my experiences that God is good and do not put me to the test.

Quote

Yeah a few times. What makes you think it is impossible?

I agree my question wasn't correctly formed.I meant : Did you ever follow your conscience and then something bad happens BECAUSE of it? (not something outside your control) Did your conscience ever LIED to you? If so could we have an example? If not, can I conclude it's impossible that such a thing happen?

Quote

Who says the conscience is lying? What if it didn't lie? What If "God" was involved and initiated the test to see how you handle the situation?

For me God = Conscience. To put me to a test, God must lie to me. For example : I ask him, should I pull the trigger? Then he answers "yes" to test me. He then lied to me since he knows I shouldn't pull the trigger.

Quote

How would you know it's impossible if you have no means of detecting or predicting the nature of "God"? [...] Look, the point is, how do you know anything about "God" if you have no supporting evidence regarding "God"?

I have means of detecting God and learning about his nature. Catechism, and miracles.

I'm really glad that you take time to answer my question. I hope that you will continue. It will help me detect what one of us might have misunderstood.

It is not. When you look at the data. Does most of the population (most of the educated people) get vaccinated? If so, the people decided it was a good thing. You should then try another example than the vaccination one because people who don't get vaccinated would be the minority.

By not getting vaccinated you threaten the lives of others. Polio is on the rise and luckily we have wiped out smallpox or we might be seeing it taking lives.

The people not lucky enough to build an immunity from the vaccination are protected by all receiving the shot. I waffle on Chicken Pox and HepB shot for infants. But most of the rest I pretty much am for with out question.

The only reason I hesitate on HepB and Chicken Pox is because I don't see a credible chance of exposer at infant age worth the minor risk of the shot. I am all for both when the kid has a little more of an immune system and has passed certain developmental milestones.

Read a book : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson. Stop trying to change the subject. We are talking about the proof of the existence of God outside your body : Miracles. Not what is a Higgs Boson.

Answer. The. Question. Already.

This is to make sure you know what you're talking about. If you do not know anything about the Higgs boson, then trying to compare it to these miracles you so desperately want to prove are real will backfire even worse than it already has; it will demonstrate even more thoroughly than you already have that you don't have any actual proof of miracles and are simply taking the word of priests when they claim it is without evidence.

Right now, there are three possible outcomes. First, you successfully give a short explanation of what the Higgs boson is, at which point we can move on to whether it can justifiably be compared to 'finding' a miracle. Second, you admit that you don't know, which will damage your argument but will demonstrate that you are at least honest in admitting that you don't know. And third, you continue trying to dodge answering and thus end up showing that you are too fundamentally dishonest, ignorant, and incompetent to even discuss this subject. Or any other, in my opinion.

This is your last chance to redeem yourself. I have no interest in holding a discussion with someone who's so dishonest with himself that he can't even admit that he doesn't know something when it's become obvious that he doesn't. So if you intend to show that you are that dishonest, go right ahead and try dodging again.

Quote from: Lukvance

It is not. When you look at the data. Does most of the population (most of the educated people) get vaccinated? If so, the people decided it was a good thing. You should then try another example than the vaccination one because people who don't get vaccinated would be the minority.

In order for herd immunity to work, it cannot simply be a 'majority' of people who get immunized, because there are people who cannot be immunized for whatever reason. It must be as many people as physically possible. Because of the anti-vaccination crowds causing a decline in immunization due to their hype and false information, there have already been measles outbreaks in the UK and pertussis (whooping cough) outbreaks in the US, both of which had those diseases firmly under control due to effectively mandatory immunizations. Both of those diseases are potential killers, especially of children.

This is what your belief that people should decide leads to - a direct threat to the lives of children caused by people who are ignorant of the dangers. Decisions about vaccinations are simply too important to leave in the hands of people who are not qualified to make those decisions, or are too ignorant of the facts.

The only reason I hesitate on HepB and Chicken Pox is because I don't see a credible chance of exposer at infant age worth the minor risk of the shot. I am all for both when the kid has a little more of an immune system and has passed certain developmental milestones.

Out of curiosity, what role do you think regular vaccination against chicken pox in society has played in the degree of chance of exposure to chicken pox?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

How about you show evidence of some particular kind of energy which is present only in the people healed, and not present in the others? That wouldn't necessarily show that it was a miracle, but it would at least show that there was some basis for concluding that there was a difference between those who were healed and those who weren't.

Isn't absence of tumor in the healed and the presence of tumor in the not healed enough? Why? If there was an energy, how would you measure it? Do you think it should have a source? If you don't know the source of the energy wouldn't that bring you back to the same problem you are having now?Why would there be a need of "some particular kind of energy"? What else would you add? since even with the energy "That wouldn't necessarily show that it was a miracle"

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

Again "what they do after is not scientific" is a claim that should be supported. And for that you should be able to tell us "what they do after" and support your claim with quotes from experts that knows "what they do after" then show us why it is not scientific. Finally present us how it should be done to be scientific.

It is up to you to show that what your priests do is scientific. I have already conceded that the process is scientific up to a point - specifically, where the scientists involved conclude that they have no explanation for why those people healed. It is up to you to show that the process your priests go through is also scientific, which you have consistently and repeatedly failed to do. To do this even by your own rules, you must show that your priests are experts in science (which, notably, you have never actually done). If they are not experts in science, they cannot take over from actual experts in science who concluded that they couldn't explain something.

It's up to ME to support YOUR claim? wow. That's a new low. Don't claim things you know nothing about! Retract your claim that "what they do after is not scientific" and we can move on to the discussion... Or support it. I don't think I have to explain to you how discussion works.

Quote

the Catholic church has a ritual for deciding whether something is or isn't a miracle. But that doesn't make a bit of difference as to whether it actually is or isn't a miracle. It simply means that they followed the ritual which, to them, decides whether it is.

And you know that because...? Do you know what would make a difference as to whether it is a miracle? (I can understand on what would make a difference as to whether it is NOT a miracle)

Quote

In short, if I follow the same rules that your church does, including submitting my findings to that very same church after determining that scientists had no explanation for what happened, they would again decide that it was a miracle? And you don't see the problem with this? Tell me, do the words "conflict of interest" mean anything to you?

What would be the rules you wish to follow? I think you don't have to follow the same rules that my church does. But it's like you saying "do I have to follow the same rules that the scientists at the LHC followed when they looked for the Higgs boson?" You follow you rules, they will follow theirs and at the end you compare! I believe that you will come to the same conclusion.

Quote

There's a reason scientists have to have their peers review their work, including people who don't agree with them. However, for that to work here, your church would have to let other religious organizations, including non-Christian ones, get in on the act. I'm sure even you can see the problem with that.

No problem. Pitch in!

Quote

And what happens when someone goes through all that rigamarole with a miracle recognized by your church, but takes it to some other church, which declares that it was not actually God's doing, but a demon's doing?

Like when? When in the history of miracle do you encounter such thing?

Quote

This is a big problem that you haven't faced; your method requires accepting the authority of your church, but what happens when someone doesn't accept it?

Nothing happens. Something change if the one who is not accepting if proves that it is not from God. And, to my knowledge. that never happen. Even centuries after the miracle.

Quote

Quote from: Lukvance

What would be the scientific way?

I've tried to explain to you how science works, and you've only come back trying to claim that what you're doing is too scientific! You've demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the Higgs boson, and yet you keep trying to use it to support your belief in miracles even though it's patently ridiculous to use something you don't know much about to justify something else you don't know much about. All you've succeeded in demonstrating there is that you understand neither miracles nor the Higgs boson.

What would be the scientific way? I don't want you to explain to me what scientific means. I am asking for you to describe the way it should be for it to be scientific and how that way you described is different from the one already in place?

Quote

Truthfully, if, say, Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Hindus, were to go through this and concluded that they weren't actually miracles from God, would you be even slightly likely to listen to them?

The only reason I hesitate on HepB and Chicken Pox is because I don't see a credible chance of exposer at infant age worth the minor risk of the shot. I am all for both when the kid has a little more of an immune system and has passed certain developmental milestones.

Now imagine you still don't want to get them vaccinated against chicken pox until after it's no longer safe for them, as I don't believe you are qualified to judge how much of an immune system is enough, or what "developmental milestones" are important for this. They'll spend their entire (possibly short) lives worrying about contamination, since chicken pox can be deadly to adults. In addition, vaccines don't harm the person receiving them. If they did, it'd be kind of stupid to do it, wouldn't it? Yes, they are inserting viruses and bacteria into the kids' bodies. One tiny little problem with your mentality, though: the pathogens are either dead or have been "disabled", both meaning that they aren't a threat to the kids' lives. Actually getting the "working" pathogen through exposure to sick people? Potentially deadly.Educate yourself on vaccines and don't buy the anti-vaccine crowd's bullshit.

This is what your belief that people should decide leads to - a direct threat to the lives of children caused by people who are ignorant of the dangers. Decisions about vaccinations are simply too important to leave in the hands of people who are not qualified to make those decisions, or are too ignorant of the facts.

Does most of the population (most of the educated people) get vaccinated? What are the stats? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? How much population must be vaccinated for it to work? How much was actually vaccinated? Please, support your claims.

Alright, Lukvance, since you have repeatedly refused to even attempt to explain what the Higgs boson is, so I can be sure that you know what you're talking about, and were not even willing to recant your ignorant attempts to compare it to miracles, I have no choice but to assume that you don't have the first idea of what it is. Since you repeatedly insisted on trying to compare the Higgs boson to miracles, I therefore have no choice but to assume that you are just as ignorant of miracles as you are of the Higgs boson. In short, your position regarding miracles is based on a complete lack of knowledge - that is, ignorance - and any statement you make regarding them is nothing more than your personal opinion and can be safely regarded as such.

Because of your ignorance of the subject, you are in no position to rate whether a person is an expert on miracles or not. You are, quite simply, too credible and easy to fool regarding them, and thus your opinion on them cannot be trusted. To make matters worse, you are inherently dishonest regarding your lack of knowledge. When I confronted you about it, you repeatedly insisted that I should not be 'judgmental' and should simply lay out my argument and let people decide between the two. However, this is a patently ridiculous attitude; as you yourself have demonstrated, over and over again, people are all too likely to allow themselves to be misled by someone pandering to their inherent beliefs. It has been conclusively shown, over and over again, that when people are given a choice between alternatives, they pick the one that is the closest fit to what they already believe, not the one which is the most likely to be correct.

Even intelligent people who have trained themselves to be self-critical can fall prey to this fallacy. How much more likely is it that someone like you, who never learned to be self-critical and therefore has an inflated opinion of his own attributes and such, will fall prey to it? I realize it may be unpleasant to hear things like that, but I've tried being nice, and I've tried being reasonable, and plenty of other things. None of it has worked because you never learned to doubt yourself and you apparently don't get subtlety. So I'm pretty much down to being unsubtle and blunt, and the thing about being blunt is that it can be really painful. Maybe if I figuratively whack you upside the head enough times, I'll shake loose some of that unreasonable certainty of yours.

This article explains in very simple terms why a control group is needed to see whether a particular miracle healing actually happened or was just a coincidence. No control group means no conclusive evidence. The healing would have happened anyway. No god required.

Does most of the population (most of the educated people) get vaccinated?

Whether they are educated or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether they were vaccinated, in order to maintain the "herd immunity" bulwark against disease, not how educated they are.

Quote from: Lukvance

What are the stats?

I am not certain of the exact numbers, since it differs by community. However, the general numbers are available from the CDC - in general, upwards of 80% of infants from 18 months to 36 months were immunized against each category listed in 2012. And yet, the number of new measles cases in the U.S. has been abnormally high this year; nearly 300 new cases were reported to the CDC as of May 24, a higher number of cases than were reported in the entirety of 2011 and 2013, the two highest years previous to this. The new cases have almost all been linked to non-vaccinated individuals traveling to different countries, getting infected there, and then returning to the U.S.; virtually all of them infected people in this country who were not vaccinated. 85% of those not vaccinated were because of religious, personal, or philosophical reasons.

Quote from: Lukvance

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Quite sure. The arguments and the tendencies of the anti-vaccination crowd are well-documented, as are the disease outbreaks I was talking about.

Quote from: Lukvance

How much population must be vaccinated for it to work? How much was actually vaccinated?

I am not entirely certain of the numbers (they should be available at the CDC, but there is a lot of data there and finding specifically what I need can be tricky); however, the mere fact that we have seen such a spike in measles cases this year is a strong indication that the herd immunity bulwark is starting to falter.

Quote from: Lukvance

Please, support your claims.

Certainly, since I am the one making the claims. Furthermore, you hopefully noticed that I linked to data that can be independently verified and doesn't rely on purely subjective judgments from people who claim to have received that information from a god.

I am a bit opinionated on the vaccine thing, having seen children die of preventable illnesses in third world countries. Also, my sister is a CDC immunization officer for a major city's public health department. She works with doctors to make sure the immunization rates are high enough in poor neighborhoods-- where moms take their babies on the bus in the snow and wait in line at public clinics to make sure they get their shots on schedule.

I now live in an area of the US where there has been an increase in childhood illnesses like whooping cough in the past few years, directly linked to the anti-vaccine people.

It is a combination of two groups who are not getting their kids vaccinated and are the main source of the diseases spreading:

1) Fundamentalist religious people who think that "prayer is enough to protect my kids". (To hell with other people's kids, like those who cannot tolerate the vaccines because of allergies, HIV or cancer.) This group has the largest numbers of infected kids in their private religious schools and in their home schooled population.

2) Fairly well educated liberal vegan hippie types who think that "medical science is unnatural" (The disease viruses that kill kids are only too natural, but I guess that kind of nature is okay.) I have heard members of this group say that rabies vaccines for pets are also unnecessary. Since they have never heard of anybody's dog ever getting rabies, it must be a scam so vets can make money.....[1]

In the 1960's when I was a kid, we got our shots at school-- public health nurses showed up on "Shot Day" with the vaccines and lollipops every year. Only one or two of the most diehard anti-commie government-hating anti-fluoride type of fanatic got a legal waiver or kept their kid home that day. Everyone else was just so glad to have smallpox and polio taken care of. Our parents remembered FDR in his chair, and visiting their bedridden paralyzed playmates struck down by polio.

We all got everything that remained as the childhood epidemics swept through the schools. We had to be scared of diphtheria, encephalitis, mumps. Me and my siblings all had measles, chicken pox and several other contagious illnesses. An adult had to stay home with us. Kids were expected to lose a week or two for each disease. Some of them did not make it back. It sucked. Nowadays, entire schools of kids do not have to routinely lose weeks to sickness, or playmates to polio or diphtheria.

We are apparently destined to repeat this cycle over and over again. Not because, like in Guatemala, Haiti, Congo, India, or Bangladesh, where the people are desperately wanting the shots, but the governments do not have the resources to reach all the kids. Oh, no.